If all wars end in dialogue, why begin with bloodshed? On June 18, 2026, after nearly four months of escalating hostilities that threatened to ignite a wider war in the Middle East, representatives of the United States and Iran signed what is now known as the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding. Brokered largely through Pakistani mediation and backed by a coalition of international actors, the agreement brought a fragile halt to a conflict that had drawn in Israel, shaken global markets, disrupted energy supplies, and left thousands of people dead across several countries. At that meeting in Islamabad, diplomats smiled cautiously for the cameras, while politicians spoke of peace, stability, and mutual commitments. Yet beyond the ceremony and diplomatic niceties, a more profound question lingered: If virtually every war ends around a negotiating table, why do nations so often choose the battlefield first?
This question extends far beyond the latest confrontation involving Washington, Tehran and Tel Aviv; it echoes through the ruins of Ukraine, across the refugee camps of Sudan, through the memories of Biafra, and into communities across Nigeria still grappling with the consequences of insurgency, banditry and communal violence. It also grows more urgent with each passing decade as warfare becomes more technologically sophisticated, more economically disruptive, and, paradoxically, less capable of delivering lasting political solutions. The conflict that culminated in the Islamabad agreement began with familiar justifications, as US President Donald Trump emphasized regional security concerns and Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu then framed military actions as necessary for national survival and regional stability. Consequently, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and senior Iranian officials maintained that their military response was a strategic defense of national sovereignty and resistance to external aggression. Each side had a reason to strike, speaking the language of necessity and believing their actions were more justified than those of the opponents. This is how wars begin.
The First World War started on 28 July 1914 and was expected to end by Christmas of that year, but it lasted four more years—finally ending on 11 November 1918, when Germany signed an armistice with the Allies in Compiègne, France. The United States entered Vietnam in 1955, confident that military dominance would quickly contain communism, but the war continued until the Paris Peace Accords in 1975, twenty years after the war commenced. Similarly, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was anticipated to resolve quickly, within weeks, but the conflict has persisted far longer than expected. It has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries, displaced millions, devastated entire cities, and caused economic impacts far beyond Eastern Europe. Deaths are still being counted, along with devastation, uncertainty, fear, and anxiety.
This same pattern unfolded in the Middle East during the current US-Iran conflict. What began as a strategic confrontation soon evolved into a humanitarian and economic disaster, whose effects are still being felt well beyond the immediate combat zones. The closure and disruption of shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway through which roughly one-fifth of global oil trade passes, transformed the regional conflict into a global concern. Once maritime traffic became uncertain, energy markets reacted almost immediately, with oil prices skyrocketing, disrupting global economic activity and market investments. In Nigeria, and across Africa, economists warned of renewed inflationary pressures, with businesses already struggling with high operating costs and market volatility. Developing economies dependent on imported energy products found themselves particularly vulnerable.
For ordinary citizens, the impact was neither abstract nor theoretical. When energy prices rise, transportation becomes more expensive, which, in turn, increases food prices and reduces food availability and accessibility — because household purchasing power declines as food prices rise. The chain reaction affects everyone, from the farmer transporting produce to the market, to the teacher and civil servants paying transport fares, to the family struggling to keep food on the table. Ironically, while various governments are spending billions to finance military operations, millions of ordinary people around the world worry about the cost of bread, cooking oil, school fees, and healthcare.
Preliminary assessments show that the sheer financial waste of the US-Iran conflict defies comprehension: a staggering $2 billion per day was burned on military operations alone—wealth that a senior UN official noted could have otherwise provided life-saving aid for more than 87 million people. Instead, it was spent on an asymmetric arms race where a $20,000 kamikaze drone (by Iran) was hunted down by a $4 million interceptor missile (of the US or Israel), compounding a massive global economic drag that experts estimate will cost individual households thousands of dollars in macroeconomic fallout. In a world where nearly 700 million people still experience extreme poverty, the spectacle of nations spending billions each day to destroy each other’s infrastructure inevitably raises uncomfortable moral questions.
Calculating the economic costs of a US-Iran war is difficult. The total cost depends on three factors: direct military spending, economic damage, and broader global impacts. For the USA, early estimates from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) put the first 100 hours of operations at about $3.7 billion. CSIS later estimated that costs had reached about $11.3 billion by day 6 and $16.5 billion by day 12. Iran has suffered extensive damage to its infrastructure and economy. Recent reporting cites war-related damage of around $270 billion, with major energy-sector repairs still needed. Civilian casualties, displacement, and damage to industry and oil facilities add to the economic burden.
Yet, even these extraordinary financial costs tell only part of the story, as the deeper tragedy lies in the human consequences. Early reports from the conflict indicate that between 7,500 and 10,000 people may have lost their lives across several countries. Lebanese authorities reported more than 3,700 fatalities amid military operations that displaced hundreds of thousands of people, while Iranian officials reported over 3,400 deaths, including military commanders, government officials, and civilians. Additional casualties were recorded in Israel, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and among American military personnel deployed in the region. In Iran, joint US-Israeli bombings obliterated critical civilian infrastructure—destroying at least 30 schools, shattering water pipelines, and damaging 240 medical facilities, 54 museums, and five UNESCO World Heritage sites—while retaliatory Iranian strikes tore through airports, hotels, and oil infrastructure across the Gulf states.
As we celebrate the end of the US-Iran war, we must analyze the lessons learned and the factors responsible for the staggering loss of life and property caused by this senseless war. The world cannot afford a repeat of such a scenario, for it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good. To be continued next week.
